Some concerns about what a reputable gunsmith said about my rifle

[ssimo]

View attachment 602509
View attachment 602510

Ahah i will repeat again. I DO NOT have talley rings, just the 2 piece bases. Rings are very light and in the some areas i can see them breaking. Not a 2 inch rail with two holes in it

 

[ssimo]

What competitions is he shooting in with crazy big calibers? Is he an ELR shooter or something?

He shoots mostly 375 Cheytac

 

[ssimo]

I'm not gonna argue with you man. They literally crack in half.
Do your research

That's crazy talley is still on the market and is also reccomended by some custom rifle producers! Inhave heard of their unimounts breaking though. That's the price for the ultralight weights most hunters look for nowadays

Pfncourse there is no need to argue my friend, on the contrary i appreciate your input!

 

[MtnW]

What country are you in?
Why not use Talley steel bases and rings? I have them on most of my rifles and they perform without issue.

 

[ssimo]

What country are you in?
Why not use Talley steel bases and rings? I have them on most of my rifles and they perform without issue.

Because this way i save some weight, with the recoil of a 308 and a not incredibly heavy scope on the rifle aluminum will be good to go. The rifle is for hunting and setup like it is now it will weight around 10 pounds, with a bipod, sling etc. For me this is the ideal weight for a hunting precision rifle (hunting small roe deer up to 400 meters require pretty good accuracy and everything that can help shooting better in field condition is well accepted). I live in Italy

 

[BRTreedogs]

Sorry. My misunderstanding about bases, vs rings.
Good luck out there.

 

[MtnW]

On a 10 LB. rifle you will never notice the difference in a few ounces of additional scope base/ring weight.

 

[TaperPin]

It could be the gunsmith uses thread locker on his own gear, but not on work for others, or a loose screw is not a thing he’s worried about since top competitive shooters are known to be meticulous and double check all screws before an important match, and hunters like to not mess with removing scopes just to check base screws.

It’s kind of a pain in the butt to do thread locker well, especially if manufacturers recommendations are followed and both male and female threads are cleaned to be oil free, and cleaning dried thread locker is even more of a hassle.

I use heavy duty screws, torque very tight, and use epoxy to bond the base and lock the screws. It takes a heat gun to replace, but is very secure.

The test for cocking piece slap is some version of this - any bluing is removed from the bottom of the cocking piece, and a very thin layer of Dykum blue (about like deep blue artist’s oil paint) is applied. Then the bolt is inserted and dry fired and the trigger is removed so the bolt can be removed without disturbing any marks on the cocking piece. If the blue coating has no marks and no blue has transferred onto the other piece, then there is no slap. The amount of material required to be removed to avoid the slap is checked in the same way.

Who knows - maybe he wasn’t talking about bolt slap, but something else. Lol

 

[TaperPin]

What country are you in?
Why not use Talley steel bases and rings? I have them on most of my rifles and they perform without issue.

Those are great rings.

 

[ssimo]

Sorry. My misunderstanding about bases, vs rings.
Good luck out there.

Thanks man, i need it because I have 25% chance to get a tag for a red deer this november

 

[ssimo]

On a 10 LB. rifle you will never notice the difference in a few ounces of additional scope base/ring weight.

You will notice! It's almost half a pound! I don't save weight for useful accessories and gear that gives me an advantage while hunting within common sense, but i don't have reasons to predict a practical advantage with steel rings and bases in this case (low recoiling caliber, not horrendously heavy scope).

Aluminum will likely serve me well.

For me 9.5-10 lbs is a good weight for a hunting rifle if you need very precise shots. My other rifle weights about 9 pounds and i find that weight ideal for a rifle to use inside 280 yards (250 meters). Too light is not good for me. But consider that i am 31 years old and fit!

 

[EdP]

If your base screws and action holes are properly degreased, there no need to put loctite on the screws. Proper torque is also necessary.

I remember reading a post on this subject some time ago from someone who lived in the western US. His experience was exactly as described in the quote above until he moved east. He found the degreased screws/holes rusted in the humidity of the east. Oil was not an option because the screws would not hold so he ended up using Loctite.

 

[ssimo]

I remember reading a post on this subject some time ago from someone who lived in the western US. His experience was exactly as described in the quote above until he moved east. He found the degreased screws/holes rusted in the humidity of the east. Oil was not an option because the screws would not hold so he ended up using Loctite.

Exactly, loctite is also anti corrosive. I really don't see why not to put it at least on base screws if not for laziness

 

[HandgunHTR]

Exactly, loctite is also anti corrosive. I really don't see why not to put it at least on base screws if not for laziness

One of the main reasons is because actual torque values between a wet and a dry fastener vary greatly.

 

[Formidilosus]

One of the main reasons is because actual torque values between a wet and a dry fastener vary greatly.

Except that Loctite isn’t nearly what oil is in K value. It virtually unchanges the torque from dry- well below the variance in even good torque wrenches.

The “don’t use loctite because it over torques” screws is BS repeated by scope companies because it’s the easiest thing to pass blame on when their scope fails.

 

[Mike Islander]

Except that Loctite isn’t nearly what oil is in K value. It virtually unchanges the torque from dry- well below the variance in even good torque wrenches.

The “don’t use loctite because it over torques” screws is BS repeated by scope companies because it’s the easiest thing to pass blame on when their scope fails.

True. And Loctite is very clear that they do not recommend torque reduction for their products. But OTHER thread locking products can affect thread lubrication, and so will affect torque.

Chris Manger from Loctite states that the Loctite range of Thread-Lockers are designed to simulate as closely as possible a dry bolt torque condition.

 

[ssimo]

One of the main reasons is because actual torque values between a wet and a dry fastener vary greatly.

You can simply take this into account and reduce (not increase!) Values of 20%, even if loctite doesn't say it's needed

 

[kpk]

where there are no scientific randomized trials to assess these relatively small concerns, people tend to do what they think is ok and, when someone is too full of himself, tends to disregard the common practice and do what he wants. For him these very high torque values worked out well apparently

Pretty sure this is why manufacturing companies have mechanical engineers on the payroll - to calculate and determine things like torque specs - that we as shooters don't know.

 

[Jpsmith1]

Loctite changes the clamping force applied by the fastener at a given torque valve.

This is because loctite or ANY treatment on the threads changes how the bare metal surfaces slide together, making it easier for them to turn or maybe more difficult for them to turn.

So, 30 in/lb of torque applies some "x" valve of clamping force to hold these 2 parts together. By making the parts slide together easier, that 30 in/lb applies what can be a significant amount more clamping force and that can lead to problems.

There are published torque adjustment factors that you could use if you wanted to be exactly correct. Loctite claims no adjustment is needed when using their products, though.

Doubling the torque applied to any assembly would concern me deeply and I don't think I would allow that person to work on anything that I own

 

[Flyrodr]

So, say someone puts a piece of Plastigauge (https://www.plastigaugeusa.com/how-it-works.html) between the scope and the upper and/or lower ring, torques the cap down to spec dry (say, 25 in-lbs, and measures the Plastigauge to determine clearance). And then that process is repeated, except for adding Loctite to the threads, and taking measurements again.

If the compressed (torqued down) measurements of the Plastigauge are the same using dry and Loctite-coated fasteners, there would be no difference in the clearance, and thus no difference in the pressure exerted on the scope tube. Correct? [I am NOT an engineer.]

Assuming the above is correct, does anyone know if this has been done? If not, anyone willing to do it?